This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory. Not that he’s some kind of condescending liberal or anything, but we human beings just won’t listen to all the wonderful people like him. And the biggest problem is that whole pesky democracy thingy:

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

Remember – you have to bow down to and worship your betters. You make up their own data and create crises that aren’t there.

And if there is any doubt we are talking about the religion of science:

“Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science,” he said. “I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”

After the laws banning all guns are passed, there should be an amnesty period that would allow gun owners to voluntarily turn in their guns. After that, a system of rewards for informants could be put in place, with upgraded rewards for turning in family members who still own guns.

We should not only get rid of the guns in circulation now, but melt down those in museums; they have no place in our world. When all guns are gone, everywhere, the world will return to the peaceful, nurturing society that existed before the scourge of firearms made us violent.

Of course, warrantless personal/vehicular/home searches would be necessary, but what a small price to pay for a safe, orderly, peaceful society!

JEFFREY L. SUITS Kensington

So somehow the whole history of the world before firearms has passed recognition by Mr. Suits. The piles of dead by the Egyptians and Hitties and Romans and Mongols and so many others were accomplished without guns. The utter tyranny and slavery that has been almost all of human history seems to have completely slipped by this utter moron. And to get it he wants a) family members to snitch on each other, b) absolute and utter government tyranny to take anything they wish and c) absolute government authority to search anything they want.

Don’t these people understand that the people with the guns are probably the ones most well positioned to resist this kind of idiocy – as the founding fathers foresaw and the reason why they put that whole second amendment thing in the Constitution – and that the power to destroy goes both ways. They won’t be in power forever and if we then decide that kicking down doors in San Francisco to find say drugs or illegals doesn’t need a warrant, do they think that will be a fine and wonderful use of government initiative?

I ran across a great review of Gordon Brown and The Holy Messiah’s visions for the future by Janet Daley in the UK Telegraph:

Mr Obama – who gives the impression of being considerably out of his depth in the economic maelstrom – talks of an “opportunity” to “reorganise our priorities”. He gave a major speech last week in which he actually seemed to suggest that the present crisis had been caused by America’s failure to develop a universal health care system and to attend to the impending environmental disaster of global warming (“we made the wrong choices”), and that by focusing on these matters a way can be found out of the country’s economic problems.

Is he quite mad? Does he really believe that the banking crisis and the recession were some kind of divine retribution for the absence of universal health care, and excessive carbon emissions? Or is he suggesting that a practical solution lies in spending money on health care and the development of alternative energy sources?

Its a power grab and everyone knows it who is actually paying attention. Here’s Mr. Brown’s vision for the future:

In Gordon Brown’s fantasy, this is an “opportunity” to exercise control over the whole world. Not just stricter regulation by national governments of their own economic institutions, but a wondrous new level of international regulation by supranational functionaries – to be appointed by whom? A World Government agency accountable to no electorate and with no democratic mandate from the populations over whom it will wield such power? Trotskyists used to say that Stalinist Russia had failed to achieve Utopia because it had embraced “socialism in one country” rather than going for “world revolution”. Now, we are being told that Labour’s market-led social justice programme failed because it opted for “regulation in one country” instead of understanding the need for “world regulation”.

Maybe being an ex-Marxist is a bit like being a lapsed Catholic: you never quite get rid of the old thought patterns.

In the more overheated renditions of the Brown theme, there is talk of a “global vision for fairness”, in which the very poverty that is being visited upon all the developed economies will somehow make it possible to redistribute wealth to the developing world.

And these wonderful visions of destroying rich countries in order to make everybody equally poor have been voted into office by a bunc h of idiots who somehow think they will get everything for “free”. Free health care, free mortgages, car tires automatically inflated to the right pressure, free food, and all done by taking the money from the six evil rich people who control all the wealth.